Newspapers are normally reluctant to criticise one another. Like any people in the same craft, they are acutely aware of its pitfalls and know that none is immune to them. Yet they also share an interest in the credibility of the craft.
When a newspaper reports that the state security
agency is spying on groups for political purposes, and the tale turns out to rely on plainly unreliable sources, the public is bound to wonder about standards of journalism generally.
The publishers of the Sunday Star-Times have done us no favours by trying to cover their embarrassment with the contention that when they hear of a story such as this they are bound to investigate it and report it. Only the first part is true. They may investigate but they should not report what they cannot verify. The paper was not sure of the story, as it subsequently had to concede.
Now that the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security has examined all the claims and sought in vain to find evidence for them, the editor attempts to put the best face on it. Justice Paul Neazor's failure to find evidence, she says, highlights the difficulty of corroborating claims involving the intelligence community.
In fact, it shows that some people always prefer to believe the worst of the Security Intelligence Service. That was the Sunday Star-Times' downfall and the editor seems not to realise it. Even now she sounds unwilling to accept that the judge's failure to find evidence for the illegal surveillance means it probably did not happen.
The story was clearly the imagination of "conmen", as the Prime Minister describes them, aided by the credulity of the reporters. It should never have seen the front page, or any page, of a respectable newspaper.
If a public agency had performed as badly, newspapers would be demanding accountability. They should be no less demanding of themselves. The paper might make a better response tomorrow. We hope so.
